More lefties learn the glory of the 15 dollar minimum wage....unemployment.....

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

Compare the minimum wage burden on family owned businesses to what is happening in the world oil prices impact on the major oil giants......I currently work for three different oil companies British Petroleum just cut wages by 15%, Chevron cut by 20% and a third unknown has not cut any percent so far. Keep in mind this slash in wages is world wide. So take one Ma & Pa corner store and force them to increase expenses without one penny of increase profit. Is there one person out there that believes that will work? If you do, go to your banks website and look up their interest rate on savings accounts. The idea of running a business is singular, TO MAKE MONEY and when you cannot make money you fold because you are forced to fold because 10 minus 7 does not equal 12.

Of course the idea is to make money. Most mom and pops are not going to be overly affected by a $2.75 raise in the minimum wage. What will they have maybe 2 employees who aren't already there?

So a mom & pop that has say 5 full time min wage ee's at an increase of 2.75 an hr....thats 20 a day per ee, or 500 a wk, 2000mo, 24,000 a yr.....

Piece of cake for mom and pop..... Lol

First of all, please show me a mom and pop that has 5 employees earning $7.25 an hour. I doubt you can do so.

 

[LogikAndReazon]

Compare the minimum wage burden on family owned businesses to what is happening in the world oil prices impact on the major oil giants......I currently work for three different oil companies British Petroleum just cut wages by 15%, Chevron cut by 20% and a third unknown has not cut any percent so far. Keep in mind this slash in wages is world wide. So take one Ma & Pa corner store and force them to increase expenses without one penny of increase profit. Is there one person out there that believes that will work? If you do, go to your banks website and look up their interest rate on savings accounts. The idea of running a business is singular, TO MAKE MONEY and when you cannot make money you fold because you are forced to fold because 10 minus 7 does not equal 12.

Of course the idea is to make money. Most mom and pops are not going to be overly affected by a $2.75 raise in the minimum wage. What will they have maybe 2 employees who aren't already there?

So a mom & pop that has say 5 full time min wage ee's at an increase of 2.75 an hr....thats 20 a day per ee, or 500 a wk, 2000mo, 24,000 a yr.....

Piece of cake for mom and pop..... Lol

After benefits, ss etc.....

There will be one less employee working for mom and pop...Cya!

Not complicated...... Lol

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

Compare the minimum wage burden on family owned businesses to what is happening in the world oil prices impact on the major oil giants......I currently work for three different oil companies British Petroleum just cut wages by 15%, Chevron cut by 20% and a third unknown has not cut any percent so far. Keep in mind this slash in wages is world wide. So take one Ma & Pa corner store and force them to increase expenses without one penny of increase profit. Is there one person out there that believes that will work? If you do, go to your banks website and look up their interest rate on savings accounts. The idea of running a business is singular, TO MAKE MONEY and when you cannot make money you fold because you are forced to fold because 10 minus 7 does not equal 12.

Of course the idea is to make money. Most mom and pops are not going to be overly affected by a $2.75 raise in the minimum wage. What will they have maybe 2 employees who aren't already there?

So a mom & pop that has say 5 full time min wage ee's at an increase of 2.75 an hr....thats 20 a day per ee, or 500 a wk, 2000mo, 24,000 a yr.....

Piece of cake for mom and pop..... Lol

After benefits, ss etc.....

There will be one less employee working for mom and pop...Cya!

Not complicated...... Lol

So what?

In your scenario of 5 employees at mom & pop. Four people get raises that get them off welfare, one person finds a job elsewhere.

Your entire " we are keeping the minimum wage low for their own good" premise is outright stupid.

 

[LogikAndReazon]

Thats great !!!!!!!!

Mom&pop/small business increases the min wage for 4ee's, fires one, and gets a substantial amount of new business from all that "new wealth" floating around ....

A win/win. Lmfao

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

Thats great !!!!!!!!

Mom&pop/small business increases the min wage for 4ee's, fires one, and gets a substantial amount of new business from all that "new wealth" floating around ....

A win/win. Lmfao

You forgot the most important aspect, getting working people off welfare.

 

[LogikAndReazon]

Thats great !!!!!!!!

Mom&pop/small business increases the min wage for 4ee's, fires one, and gets a substantial amount of new business from all that "new wealth" floating around ....

A win/win. Lmfao

You forgot the most important aspect, getting working people off welfare.

Yes, of course...... Welfare
You assume the fired worker has found a new job, i assume with all the unskilled and illegal immigrants vying for entry level work that he will be added to the welfare dole.......

 

[Ernie S.]

I'm less worried about economy wide inflation than I am in reduced employment of low skilled workers.
If you increase wages beyond what the worker can produce, increased sales won't matter. You'll just incentivize automation.

Doesn't technology allow the employee to produce more? Or are you still promoting the hamburger flipping robot that won't work?

Doesn't technology allow the employee to produce more?

You bet! Technology could allow one employee to do the work of three.
The other two are deeply saddened.

AND, while more product is produced by a smaller labor force, individual employees are no more productive. The increase in productivity is a result of technology developed by the company. It is the corporate investment that has increased productivity, not so much labor.

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

Thats great !!!!!!!!

Mom&pop/small business increases the min wage for 4ee's, fires one, and gets a substantial amount of new business from all that "new wealth" floating around ....

A win/win. Lmfao

You forgot the most important aspect, getting working people off welfare.

Yes, of course...... Welfare
You assume the fired worker has found a new job, i assume with all the unskilled and illegal immigrants vying for entry level work that he will be added to the welfare dole.......

Let's assume for a moment that he was. Let's assume that 2 out of the 4 who got raises were on welfare and now aren't. Now let's assume that 2 out of every 5 who were let go, didn't find jobs and are thus on welfare.

That is STILL a net gain of people off welfare.

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

I'm less worried about economy wide inflation than I am in reduced employment of low skilled workers.
If you increase wages beyond what the worker can produce, increased sales won't matter. You'll just incentivize automation.

Doesn't technology allow the employee to produce more? Or are you still promoting the hamburger flipping robot that won't work?

Doesn't technology allow the employee to produce more?

You bet! Technology could allow one employee to do the work of three.
The other two are deeply saddened.

AND, while more product is produced by a smaller labor force, individual employees are no more productive. The increase in productivity is a result of technology developed by the company. It is the corporate investment that has increased productivity, not so much labor.

Untrue of course.

The technology has allowed the employee to be more productive. Without the technology the employee is less productive, but without the employee, the technology is useless.

 

[hadit]

Much ado about nothing....
This is largely a political argument for votes....

A small increase in the minimum wage for the 2.5 % of workers that earn that wont have any significant impact....

Above 10.00 businesses will find ways to trim costs......

One way would be to trim employment for those overpaid at the current min wage..... Simple really

Correct on your last point especially

I own a restaurant. We pay a minimum of $10 hour. You won't find your usual McDonalds fare working at my place. We simply won't hire people who we feel won't return $10 an hour worth the labor on a consistent basis.

IOW , one of my employees does what 2 or 3 of McDonalds employees does per hour.

The idea of "well that's all those people are worth " would be okay IF there weren't also people who WERE worth $10 an hour making $8 an hour or whatever.

Places like McDonalds, they are fine with hiring lousy employees at lousy wages and letting the government pick up the tab with welfare to supplement their wages. Their customers likewise are fine with lousy service to go along with lousy food as long as the prices remain relatively cheap. The average McMoron is also happy with lower wages as long as he gets his welfare to help supplement the low wages

The only people who are not fine with the arrangement are the taxpayers who foot the bill.

@$10/hr a single person working 30 hours a week is no longer eligible for welfare. That's the only point I care about.

What you're not taking into account is what will happen to those currently on welfare and working. Do you for a minute REALLY think they and the welfare infrastructure are going to allow them to fall off welfare because they got a small raise? Not a chance. What will happen is this. MW goes up, those who WERE receiving welfare will assume they get both the raise AND what they've always gotten from the government. Welfare stops, they're right back to where they were before (or worse off) and they get pissed. The rallying cry will be that it's just not fair to kick MW earners off welfare, and so the eligibility changes and now the customer pays more for goods and services AND still pays the welfare tab.

 

[hadit]

Here's one. Momentum Machines Burger Robot - Business Insider
Does anyone seriously think others will not follow and dramatically lower the cost?

The cost seems to be missing from the link. Also I don't see it working the register and serving customers.

The machine has an upfront cost and an operating cost. That cost will come down. It always does. Employees have an operating cost that continually rises. At some point, those costs will converge and the machine's TCO will be lower than the cost of human employees. That eliminates cooks in the back flipping burgers. Now, have you noticed that you don't have to go through a checkout line at the supermarket any more? You can scan your own goods and pay for them at a kiosk. There are restaurants where you can place your order from a screen at your table if you want. That technology will replace people working the register, it;s just a matter of adjusting the mindset of the customer. What's left? Taking the burger from the machine to the counter? You've now replaced 15 MW workers with maybe 3, and a handful of machines. It's all pure economics.

So what?

That point is coming sooner or later anyway. That has NOTHING to do with determining whether the minimum wage should be raised or not.

"No, we're not going to raise the minimum wage, it's for your own good minimum wage workers" LOL

We'll eventually can them all anyway, so let it be in a blaze of $10.00/hr. glory sooner than $7.50/hr. later.

I can appreciate people who choose the car crash over the cancer.

$10 an hour is an appropriate minimum wage. In fact $10 an hour would correct the minimum wage to 1968 levels.

It shouldn't be a national wage. $10/hr gets you a whole lot more in Mississippi than it does in California.

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

Much ado about nothing....
This is largely a political argument for votes....

A small increase in the minimum wage for the 2.5 % of workers that earn that wont have any significant impact....

Above 10.00 businesses will find ways to trim costs......

One way would be to trim employment for those overpaid at the current min wage..... Simple really

Correct on your last point especially

I own a restaurant. We pay a minimum of $10 hour. You won't find your usual McDonalds fare working at my place. We simply won't hire people who we feel won't return $10 an hour worth the labor on a consistent basis.

IOW , one of my employees does what 2 or 3 of McDonalds employees does per hour.

The idea of "well that's all those people are worth " would be okay IF there weren't also people who WERE worth $10 an hour making $8 an hour or whatever.

Places like McDonalds, they are fine with hiring lousy employees at lousy wages and letting the government pick up the tab with welfare to supplement their wages. Their customers likewise are fine with lousy service to go along with lousy food as long as the prices remain relatively cheap. The average McMoron is also happy with lower wages as long as he gets his welfare to help supplement the low wages

The only people who are not fine with the arrangement are the taxpayers who foot the bill.

@$10/hr a single person working 30 hours a week is no longer eligible for welfare. That's the only point I care about.

What you're not taking into account is what will happen to those currently on welfare and working. Do you for a minute REALLY think they and the welfare infrastructure are going to allow them to fall off welfare because they got a small raise? Not a chance. What will happen is this. MW goes up, those who WERE receiving welfare will assume they get both the raise AND what they've always gotten from the government. Welfare stops, they're right back to where they were before (or worse off) and they get pissed. The rallying cry will be that it's just not fair to kick MW earners off welfare, and so the eligibility changes and now the customer pays more for goods and services AND still pays the welfare tab.

Yes because that also has happened every time the MW has been increased.

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

The cost seems to be missing from the link. Also I don't see it working the register and serving customers.

The machine has an upfront cost and an operating cost. That cost will come down. It always does. Employees have an operating cost that continually rises. At some point, those costs will converge and the machine's TCO will be lower than the cost of human employees. That eliminates cooks in the back flipping burgers. Now, have you noticed that you don't have to go through a checkout line at the supermarket any more? You can scan your own goods and pay for them at a kiosk. There are restaurants where you can place your order from a screen at your table if you want. That technology will replace people working the register, it;s just a matter of adjusting the mindset of the customer. What's left? Taking the burger from the machine to the counter? You've now replaced 15 MW workers with maybe 3, and a handful of machines. It's all pure economics.

So what?

That point is coming sooner or later anyway. That has NOTHING to do with determining whether the minimum wage should be raised or not.

"No, we're not going to raise the minimum wage, it's for your own good minimum wage workers" LOL

We'll eventually can them all anyway, so let it be in a blaze of $10.00/hr. glory sooner than $7.50/hr. later.

I can appreciate people who choose the car crash over the cancer.

$10 an hour is an appropriate minimum wage. In fact $10 an hour would correct the minimum wage to 1968 levels.

It shouldn't be a national wage. $10/hr gets you a whole lot more in Mississippi than it does in California.

True, but thanks to dumb fuck states like Oklahoma which has $2.85 minimum that would take effect if not for the over riding federal minimum, we need a federal minimum.

 

[hadit]

Much ado about nothing....
This is largely a political argument for votes....

A small increase in the minimum wage for the 2.5 % of workers that earn that wont have any significant impact....

Above 10.00 businesses will find ways to trim costs......

One way would be to trim employment for those overpaid at the current min wage..... Simple really

Correct on your last point especially

I own a restaurant. We pay a minimum of $10 hour. You won't find your usual McDonalds fare working at my place. We simply won't hire people who we feel won't return $10 an hour worth the labor on a consistent basis.

IOW , one of my employees does what 2 or 3 of McDonalds employees does per hour.

The idea of "well that's all those people are worth " would be okay IF there weren't also people who WERE worth $10 an hour making $8 an hour or whatever.

Places like McDonalds, they are fine with hiring lousy employees at lousy wages and letting the government pick up the tab with welfare to supplement their wages. Their customers likewise are fine with lousy service to go along with lousy food as long as the prices remain relatively cheap. The average McMoron is also happy with lower wages as long as he gets his welfare to help supplement the low wages

The only people who are not fine with the arrangement are the taxpayers who foot the bill.

@$10/hr a single person working 30 hours a week is no longer eligible for welfare. That's the only point I care about.

What you're not taking into account is what will happen to those currently on welfare and working. Do you for a minute REALLY think they and the welfare infrastructure are going to allow them to fall off welfare because they got a small raise? Not a chance. What will happen is this. MW goes up, those who WERE receiving welfare will assume they get both the raise AND what they've always gotten from the government. Welfare stops, they're right back to where they were before (or worse off) and they get pissed. The rallying cry will be that it's just not fair to kick MW earners off welfare, and so the eligibility changes and now the customer pays more for goods and services AND still pays the welfare tab.

Yes because that also has happened every time the MW has been increased.

Depends how many workers are on welfare and how many will get kicked off if they get a $2 raise.

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

Not true. There are plenty of businesses that only hire min wage workers.
They'll raise prices and the people of seattle will leave the city limits to purchase those goods or they wont frequent them as often.

Give an example of a business you think would have to raise prices.

All fast food joints and any other place that hires teenagers as their main workforce.
I dont frequent fast food joints,but if they raise prices by a couple bucks for the crap food they serve I'll never set foot in one again.
And I know many people who feel the same. I want to see them stay in business when they lose a third of their customers and they have to pay artificially inflated wages.
They'll close in droves.

Fast food customers tend to be lower wage. So many customers will get wage increases. This will allow them to eat fast food more often helping cover the increased labor costs.

I'm not going to go over this for the twentieth time.
When costs increase at the very places the min wage workers are employed how does that make it any cheaper for them?

The object is to reduce the wages of the owners of this world. Tax dividends stocks and bonds as assets and income. Only right

So you want to punish successful people...we get it.

 

[hadit]

The machine has an upfront cost and an operating cost. That cost will come down. It always does. Employees have an operating cost that continually rises. At some point, those costs will converge and the machine's TCO will be lower than the cost of human employees. That eliminates cooks in the back flipping burgers. Now, have you noticed that you don't have to go through a checkout line at the supermarket any more? You can scan your own goods and pay for them at a kiosk. There are restaurants where you can place your order from a screen at your table if you want. That technology will replace people working the register, it;s just a matter of adjusting the mindset of the customer. What's left? Taking the burger from the machine to the counter? You've now replaced 15 MW workers with maybe 3, and a handful of machines. It's all pure economics.

So what?

That point is coming sooner or later anyway. That has NOTHING to do with determining whether the minimum wage should be raised or not.

"No, we're not going to raise the minimum wage, it's for your own good minimum wage workers" LOL

We'll eventually can them all anyway, so let it be in a blaze of $10.00/hr. glory sooner than $7.50/hr. later.

I can appreciate people who choose the car crash over the cancer.

$10 an hour is an appropriate minimum wage. In fact $10 an hour would correct the minimum wage to 1968 levels.

It shouldn't be a national wage. $10/hr gets you a whole lot more in Mississippi than it does in California.

True, but thanks to dumb fuck states like Oklahoma which has $2.85 minimum that would take effect if not for the over riding federal minimum, we need a federal minimum.

That wouldn't stand for long, not if workers lost $5/hr.

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

Much ado about nothing....
This is largely a political argument for votes....

A small increase in the minimum wage for the 2.5 % of workers that earn that wont have any significant impact....

Above 10.00 businesses will find ways to trim costs......

One way would be to trim employment for those overpaid at the current min wage..... Simple really

Correct on your last point especially

I own a restaurant. We pay a minimum of $10 hour. You won't find your usual McDonalds fare working at my place. We simply won't hire people who we feel won't return $10 an hour worth the labor on a consistent basis.

IOW , one of my employees does what 2 or 3 of McDonalds employees does per hour.

The idea of "well that's all those people are worth " would be okay IF there weren't also people who WERE worth $10 an hour making $8 an hour or whatever.

Places like McDonalds, they are fine with hiring lousy employees at lousy wages and letting the government pick up the tab with welfare to supplement their wages. Their customers likewise are fine with lousy service to go along with lousy food as long as the prices remain relatively cheap. The average McMoron is also happy with lower wages as long as he gets his welfare to help supplement the low wages

The only people who are not fine with the arrangement are the taxpayers who foot the bill.

@$10/hr a single person working 30 hours a week is no longer eligible for welfare. That's the only point I care about.

What you're not taking into account is what will happen to those currently on welfare and working. Do you for a minute REALLY think they and the welfare infrastructure are going to allow them to fall off welfare because they got a small raise? Not a chance. What will happen is this. MW goes up, those who WERE receiving welfare will assume they get both the raise AND what they've always gotten from the government. Welfare stops, they're right back to where they were before (or worse off) and they get pissed. The rallying cry will be that it's just not fair to kick MW earners off welfare, and so the eligibility changes and now the customer pays more for goods and services AND still pays the welfare tab.

Yes because that also has happened every time the MW has been increased.

Depends how many workers are on welfare and how many will get kicked off if they get a $2 raise.

And just between us and the wall, you know it wouldn't be all that many. Most companies would rather have SOME profit than NO profit.

The fact of the matter is that there IS a tippig point. $15/Hr is ridiculous. That doubles the current MW. However, a $2.75 raise for minimum employees probably means what a buck fifty or so for most employees who are currently <$10 an hour? Let's say you have 10 employees who receive on average $1.50 an hour in raises. Let's assume 40 hour work week. That's $60 per week per employee or $600. If your company would have to lay off an employee over an added $600 a week in wages, you have too many employees to begin with.

 

[Mr Natural]

It shouldn't be a national wage. $10/hr gets you a whole lot more in Mississippi than it does in California

And yet the goobers in ultra red state Mississippi will fight tooth and nail against an increase in the minimum wage even though it would improve their lot in life so much more than Californians.

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

It shouldn't be a national wage. $10/hr gets you a whole lot more in Mississippi than it does in California

And yet the goobers in ultra red state Mississippi will fight tooth and nail against an increase in the minimum wage even though it would improve their lot in life so much more than Californians.

Amazing how so many , left and right, will vote against their own best interests.

 

[Flopper]

Anybody generally supportive of an inflation-indexed minimum wage adjusted every 5 years? I'm seeing a lot of "hike it into the stratosphere" and a lot of "keep it where it is" from sampling posts, not a lot of middle ground.

There of 10 states,AZ, CO, FL, MO, MT, NJ, NV, OH, OR, and WA that index minimum wage to inflation. Senate Democrats are proposing this.

That's simply pandering - paying lip service without fixing the problem.

That would depend on what you mean by fixing the problem.

History has shown that tying wage increases to inflation has been ineffective, and actually contributes to the problem, rather than fixing it. Congressmen proposing to do that are merely pretending to care about fixing the problem.

In 1955 the federal minimum wage was .75/hr. Today it's 7.25/hr. If we had been indexing, minimum wage workers would be earning slightly less today, 6.57/hr.

It should be obvious to everyone that congress is going to continue to increase minimum wage. Over the last 60 years, congress has increased it 20 times. If we indexed it, Congress wouldn't have to go through the often-messy political process of drafting new legislation to raise it every few years. Since CPI is far easier to project than the whims of congress, businesses would be better able to plan and Congress would not be wasting time on this issue.

Since minimum wage has no determinable impact on employment, it's pretty silly for the country to go through these minimum wage fights every few years. Of the 192 countries on earth all of them with exception of North Korea and a half dozen third world countries, have either minimum wages set by law or negotiated via trade unions.

http://www.cepr.net/documents/publications/min-wage-2013-02.pdf